|
I personally still think that it's mainly due to the fact that Paypal believes that they can dominate the market without having a stake in Libra. If they had a stake in libra and made it big, they would essentially be helping their potential competitor, FB, in the future.
But yes, regulatory concerns with China could be a side reason as well, although I don't think it's the main reason.
Paypal should know well enough that there is next to no chance that they are going to disrupt the Chinese market when Wechat and Alipay are already established there.
|
|
|
|
Purpose for loan: Investment in digitex altcoin
Duration: maximum 5 months (time starts when loan get filled).
Loan Amount: $1200 (everything will be calculated in USD)
Monthly % interest: 5%
Some important notice: A trusted escrows would be used for this transaction (haven't discussed with anyone yet but probably DarkStar_ service will be employed if he'll be willing to partake in this transaction or we agreed on someone else who's trustworthy).
The filled loan would be sent to the escrow, he buys the token (estimated amount 30,000+ DGTX) and hold the coins until I repay loan amount plus estimated interest based on monthly calculation. After confirmation of full payment, I get access to my coins. Irrespective of when I decide to pay the monthly interested, be it at the 1st or 31st day of the month, I pay the 5% monthly interest.
Note: At any point in time I can direct the escrow to sell the token to pay the lender and cashout my profits but the lender can't access coin unless a default scenario occurs. This is a non collateral loan.
Haven't decided yet but do you think anyone would be interested in offering me this loan?
What would be the difference for the lender compared to just buying the tokens himself? It makes no sense, because if you do default, and the altcoin value goes down drastically, then the lender is exposed to the same exchange rate risks that he would have been exposed if he just bought these tokens off of the spot market. The lender is not able to even recoup the loan if tokens drop below 100% of loan value. Unless you provide at least a bit of collateral, like even 30% of loan amount as a buffer, I doubt anyone would be willing to help you here. |
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure if this would be good news or bad news for Binance users.
Obviously all exchanges right now are going to move in the direction of stricter anti-money laundering procedures in general, and Binance is no exception of this. But at the end of the day, what are they actually preventing? Probably a tiny portion of actual laundered funds, while the majority of funds actually held up if Coinfirm was actually implemented will probably be legitimate users' funds.
It threatens not only the fungibility of BTC, which is central to its value, but also provides an excuse for the exchange to hold customer funds indefinitely and ask for additional verification (which they already can do, but now more the reason to do it).
|
|
|
|
On the other day, I think of the use of stable coins. I mean, when can we use Stable coins as an alternative fiat. You see when a bull run comes and everyone will start to sell their Bitcoins and some other coins into fiat the network will be congested.
So I think if we buy Stable coins with some stable volume, we will no longer need to worry about unable to sell our bitcoin into fiat.
Rather we only need to do this thing right? is this some acceptable alternative or no?
It's not up to us to decide what the market wants. If there is demand for these stablecoins they will continue to exist - it's really as simple as that. While personally I would never really use a stablecoin for anything other than transacting and certainly not anything related to storing value long term, the market with especially larger investors who live areas with ambigious crypto regulations obviously see value in using such means of payment. I just don't feel like that the added risk of another counterparty is worth it, tbh. |
|
|
|
When ieo started with binance, it roused other exchanges to kickstart the same
But recent discovery tell us that exchange platform charge a lot to list ieo projects for ieo
And also some exchanges conduct ghost ieo and list token to drive in investors only to exit
If ico ieo sto and ito isn’t the way; how then can serious good projects conduct a crowdfunding to help their idea ??
I beg to differ. Exchange platforms charging a high fee would not be an issue if there was even a fraction of the demand for these tokens when compared to the alt craze of 2017. Back then, listing fees were absolutely over the roof with barely any legitimate, non-hyped up project being able to afford it, yet it can still be financed due to the absurdly easy environment for getting investments. And plus, people look at IEOs no differently than ICOs now, which is different to when it initially came out with the surprise factor. At the end of the day, the ICO/IEO market is completely saturated with unwilling investors right now in a bearish environment. That's all there's to it. |
|
|
|
Here we go again, binance exchange decided to delist 30 different types of trading pairs on its platform and six of those trading pairs involve tokens launched on Binance Launchpad Initial Exchange Offering (IEO) platform, namely BitTorrent, Elrond, Harmony and WINk. The trading pairs are mostly TUSD and USDC pairs and Binance claimed that the pairs were being removed to improve liquidity and user trading experience and that the choice of trading pairs was as requested by most project teams. Why would the project teams want such? what am i missing here? anyone? Read the full news through the link below https://cointelegraph.com/news/binance-delists-trading-pairs-some-include-tokens-from-its-launchpad/ampIt's misleading. The article is making it seem like that Binance is turning on the tokens which it sold on its launchpad, but that's really not the case. All they've seen here is that the cost of maintaining a market such traded against TUSD far outweighs any benefit it brings, or that it clogs up their interface. I doubt that their plains is to actually delist the coin that they IEO'd in the past completely, since the majority of these coins they are delisting can be still traded against BNB/BTC. So we've not come to that stage yet. It's not like these pairs were terribly important anyways since USDT were far more popular compared to the other stablecoin listings. |
|
|
|
Governments have done enough to dissuade common people from using Bitcoin extensively. Being charged with operating unlicensed money changing businesses is a possibility if you engage in cash-bitcoin conversion.
What do you mean? Governments have been trying to stop bitcoin since its inception, I'm not sure why you'd think the opposite. In fact, China has basically ousted their entire booming crypto industry despite the fact that it was most likely insanely profitable at the time with all of the miners, exchanges, and ICOs just raking in huge amounts of profit. They've explicitly banned exchanges and ICOs IIRC as well as making Alipay/Wechat pay make their users aware of much harsher crypto restrictions. So it's not that they haven't tried or that they're not trying, it's simply because the even the worst restrictions that governments can come up isn't able to circumvent the decentralised nature of the blockchain, which is ultimately why they can't just "shut it down". |
|
|
|
Well, this is a good news to everyone as cryptocurrency is moving towards path of legality. I assume many countries or projects are probably interested to start their business there. Hopefully there is a regulation for foreign investment just in case they wanted to start a blockchain related business there.The newly approved law will put crypto again in a major spotlight and hoping those who criticise will see its worth. Perhaps this is the only country to explicitly state these regulations within legislation, but it is certainly not the first country to implicitly regulate tokens as a security or something like that. Also, I think that your assumption here that all regulations are a path to more legalisation is a dead wrong one. The fact is that not all regulations are positive regulations, and there can be plenty of clauses that doesn't do any good, but rather imposes even more restrictions on top of an already restricting environment for investors. But clarifying certain issues when it comes to tokens can be very useful. Whether tokens are treated as currency, securities, or a good can severely impact one's tax liabilities. |
|
|
|
see https://decrypt.co/9966/bitcoin-cryptocurrency-adoption-ngo-chaarity-reportThe number of charities accepting crypto donations has doubled in North America, Europe and Australia, says the 2019 Global NGO Technology Report.
But the numbers are still small. While the number of charities accepting crypto donations has doubled in North America, Europe and Australia, cryptocurrencies still form only 2 percent of total donations.
Africa has the largest amount of NGOs accepting crypto with 5 percent, Asia follows with 4 percent, while Latin America trails with 1 percent. The real question is whether the NGOs immediately sell their crypto for fiat, or whether they then use it to buy services in the target sector using crypto. lf they did the latter, then adoption would soar in places like Africa. It shouldn't just be limited to receiving donations. I think that where NGOs can really benefit is if they can somehow partner up with a big blockchain firm to provide banking access to disadvantaged groups, especially in countries where the banking system is severely underdeveloped. I remember the case study of M-Pesa IIRC a while back that worked fairly well. That way, these underbanked and unbanked people can access the global forex and labour markets (if they have the necessarily means to doing so) with the help of cryptos at a low cost, and an internet access may not even be needed through a third party SMS wallet service. |
|
|
|
With the announcement of the FATF guidance rules earlier this year privacy coins seem to be suffering as a result. Coinbase UK dropped Zcash, OKEx delisted five privacy coins as did Upbit. Monero, Zcash and Dash are all valued at under half of their July prices. Does this mean the end of all privacy for crypto? One company in particular CipherTrace is working with exchanges to validate transaction data without having to actually share data itself which helps with the FATF travel rule. This will offer some degree of assurance but true anonymity may not thrive. What are your thoughts? https://cryptobriefing.com/privacy-coins-zcash-dash-scrutiny/Absolutely. And I certainly do expect there to be even more scrutiny in the future. I think that the important thing here to note is that real long term investors in these privacy coins really aren't that worried, as far as the few that I've talked to and the general sentiment on their forums. Especially XMR, they don't look at it as a speculative asset anyhow and discourage sudden price movements. These longer term holders that constitute a lot of the demand for these coins aren't really concerned about the regulations, because they won't be affected as transactions on-chain can still flow smoothly. All that these regulations will do is discourage institutional investors from ever touching anonymous coins, that's all. |
|
|
|
|
Even though I'm a long term bull, I'd still be cautious of buying too much in this market.
The sentiment has shifted drastically to the bearish end of the spectrum, which means that players within the market are bound to make irrational decisions as they are not only influenced by what BTC's fundamentals are when they shape demand, but also their emotions as well.
It ultimately comes down to how much this adjustment goes down to. I wouldn't put all my capital into BTC right now, but dollar cost averaging is a good strategy to go with to hedge against movement either way. I do think that BTC will likely dip below $8k for the time being, though, but the rebound can really happen any time.
|
|
|
|
|
I think the relationship between Tether and BTC prices is one that has been always quite stressed, but never actually proven. Correlation doesn't equal causation.
Increased supply of tether could be as a result of increased demand for funds to move into stablecoins from fiat in the first place to buy BTC more conveniently, which in itself may correlate Tether issuance with BTC price, but really the demand isn't coming from the increased supply of Tether - but rather the person who wanted to buy the Tether to exchange to BTC in the first place.
Essentially, Tether in this case is just a vessel. And there can be many vessels for transacting and many forms of stablecoins, not just limited to USDT.
|
|
|
|
|
Extremely informative read.
My only real query that I'm still baffled by is that why anecdotally, BTC futures only exists in contango and never really in backwardation? Given the fact that there isn't really much of a cost of carrying BTC (you can just chuck it in a cold wallet and forget about it until maturity), is it solely due to market expectations of BTC price?
Dabs is right though, this ain't beginner stuff, but it's what intermediate traders desperately need to read even if they're just trading perps, imo.
|
|
|
|
|
Most bounty campaigns are a huge waste of time.
There is a reason why they have to resort to "bounties" and not actual campaigns, paid in BTC. It is likely because of the fact that they don't have much confidence in the project themselves, and that they don't have the necessary funding to get started, which explains their willingness to give away their tokens for labour like this.
Besides, you gotta be careful with projects that don't tell you about KYC until after you give them your time - these people are the most despicable.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure if you could fairly say that the bearish sentiment right now exceeds that of the 2018 bear market, because I think that is definitely a hell of an exaggeration if you ask me.
There were a lot more doomsayers in 2018 just anecdotally on this forum compared to now, with a ton of institutions that have turned their backs on bitcoin and called it a scam, etc. While right now, the fundamentals are infinitely better with institutional investors engaged, and LN deployed.
While this correction could last longer than some expect, I doubt it's going to be anything ultra-long term.
|
|
|
|
|
It's difficult for ETH to establish any sort of tangible uptrend while BTC is still sluggish, that's just my opinion.
It could rally against BTC, but at the end of the day, it will be significantly harder to generate FOMO the size of 2017 when the value of ETH in relation to USD isn't increasing. And that ultimately is what drives price hikes in the majority of altcoins, including ETH in this case.
I'd say that ETH wouldn't be the most terrible investment right now, but I'd look at the 0.02 BTC support and clarify that first before entering the market.
|
|
|
|
A small mistake on dice made my wallet get emptied. Only mistake is that I didn't added an additional zero to the bet amount. Instead of 0.00005 btc I mistakenly placed 0.0005 btc. Further on the consecutive bets went for a double the value. This all of the sudden emptied my wallet. I didn't watched the wallet until the bet amount in the tab turned zero. Further watched the bet history and understood what big mistake I've done.  No one to blame but yourself here. Once I accidentally pressed on the max bet button when I was not supposed to and lost. Tried to message support but their response was obviously negative. It makes sense - if they set a precedent that they are going to refund bets, then how are they ever going to profit in the long run? You got to look out for the amount that you are betting. All bets are final and non-negotiable, and I've personally learned that the hard way. |
|
|
|
Parlay maybe sometime but most of it make me lose because 1 of the bet i lose. Parlay sounds good on paper, but in terms of the EV that it brings, it really just multiplies all the -EV of the bets exponentially. Why? Because each component of the parlay gives you odds that are already affected by spread and the sportsbook's inherent edge over players. Once you multiply these odds together, what you get are way more terrible odds than if you just did a straight and simple moneyline bet, for instance. Entertainment factor? Absolutely. But if you are looking for payout, uh-uh, unless you're somehow certain of a few outcomes (which would never be the case). |
|
|
|
|
It's classic sales tactics - they give you a taste with low or even no fees at the start, and once they think that you're hooked onto their product, they pull out the real guns and start hitting you with higher and higher fees.
0.5% maker and taker fees are more than double the majority of spot exchanges. Even big retail exchanges like Binance don't charge more than .25% per trade for takers and makers alike, IIRC. It seems like that they are really trying to push the "pro" element of their exchange by trying to gradually push out the small fish, but this paints them in an extremely bad light in my opinion. Plus, what's wrong with a bit more liquidity? It doesn't hurt to have more customers anyhow.
Even in the second and third tier where you'd have to trade $10k-100k per month, it doesn't make much sense to use them. 0.35% and 0.25% for such a large trading volume are barely better than most exchanges with tier programs. Real professionals on the other hand may just choose to trade in the derivatives market instead, where spreads are way lower and fees are also way down (even with rebates in some exchanges).
|
|
|
|
Okex on the other hand seems to be complying quite heavily by removing certain anonymous coins from their platform in Korea IIRC. It's not really confidence inspiring.
there's something amiss in south korea. i think they are on the verge of passing FATF-compliant regulation. upbit also delisted privacy coins from its platform and i doubt they'll be the last. so i think it'll be jurisdiction by jurisdiction. okex confirmed they would be retaining privacy coins on their other platforms. malta (where okex's main platform is registered) seems pretty accommodating. binance just launched lending services for XMR, ZEC, and DASH. Interesting. I thought that they would gradually phase them out on all of their platforms, but I guess it's not their plan. Okex on the other hand seems to be complying quite heavily by removing certain anonymous coins from their platform in Korea IIRC. It's not really confidence inspiring.
They're just following the trend first started by Japan. I don't find it too shocking to see exchanges delist privacy coins. It's not that we haven't seen this coming, right? It was somewhat set in stone with how governments don't want people to utilize anything that might help people to preserve their privacy. It's only a matter of time before it becomes a globally enforced rule. In the end, it only enhances the underlying properties of privacy coins. I never liked the idea of people buying XMR for example on an exchange they're verified at, to then use it for whatever they want to buy or whomever they want to pay. Makes little sense to me. You're right, we have seen this coming a mile away. My main concern was that Okex would slowly expand these delistings outside of even the countries who are stricter on regulations. But now that I think about it, if that does happen, it is likely that other exchanges will follow suit anyways so it's really a non-issue. And yes, I think services like xmr.to will really be popular as a result. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
